I found the discussion regarding research models to be very interesting. It seems that in order to select an appropriate model, and to rewrite it in child-friendly language, one needs to carefully consider the terminology used. The only way to really know what is going to be effective is to take a step back and look at the goals of teaching research from a pedagogical standpoint. The various stage of the model in use and the terminology used to express this model need to fulfill the goals and learning objectives at hand.
According to Riedling, the information literacy process has five basic steps (p. 6):
- A need for information
- a question
- the search for information
- an answer or response
- an evaluation
These steps allow students to fulfill the goals of information literacy: “the abilities to access, comprehend, use, and evaluate information.” (p.6)
As a teacher on call, I have no classroom currently and only have a year’s experience teaching full time, so I am currently less engrossed with the practical and feasibility of these issues. When I have worked as a new teacher, however, my focus quickly becomes what will they do for the next 45 min? rather than how will I achieve and evaluate the learning outcomes? Certainly, this is an imperative consideration as well, seeing as the model has to work or no nobly considered goals will be achieved. Nonetheless, I found I could not agree with the common opinion criticising the terminology of Big6 model that Jennifer explained succinctly on May 17: “Like Brooke, I prefer the easily understood term "communicate" to the more abstract "synthesis." I also prefer "reflect" to "assessment" or "evaluation" because it is a broader term less likely to restrict students to a statement of success or failure.” While these are important issues, I found that in order to reflect the pedagogical goals at hand, the terminology used in the Big6 is more appropriate, as I explained in my post on May 21:
I think that the focus on synthesis of information over the presentation or product is a key concept for students. The goal here is not to produce a report, but for learning to occur. As to reflection versus evaluation, I think that evaluation is far more relevant. This should be a critical thinking process, in which the evaluation of method and results should be emphasized. … The research process should be focused, rather, on problem solving and critical thinking, as these are foundational to information literacy.
Synthesis and evaluation are both common key terms when referring to information literacy, and thus need to be in place in the research model. Synthesis may be a difficult term to use with young children, but “communication” does not adequately fulfill the pedagogical goals. As well, students should be able to evaluate and assess their own work and the quality of their answer as well as the sources they are using. The idea that students may have that evaluation is about failure or success is a misunderstanding of an important word that should be addressed rather than ignored.
You're right but don't get too tied up with the syntax of all of this. Basically, the kids need to draw primary conclusions from their research and synthesize what they've learned (critical thinking). Reflection, in my head, is about what they learned w/r to process as they worked through the model - whichever one was selected.
ReplyDeleteI agree, really we should be rephrasing these anyways to suit our particular students. However, to be honest, the if you define it that way, there isn't a whole lot of contrast between the models. I was more contending with the particular reasons offered by the posts I was referring to.
ReplyDeleteAlso, somewhat as a sidenote, I think that precise terminology is very important! I may be alone in this(I often am), but I think the words we use change the way we think and that this should not be underplayed. Definitely in the fine-tuning camp, though!